How Important Is The Debate Over The Historical Jesus

[micksherlock]

It seems that this debate is getting so heated in recent times, that perspective has been almost entirely lost!

 

If Jesus was an historical person, and you prove it, do you save a starving child in Sudan?

If Jesus was not an historical person, and you prove it, do you bring back a child's parents, who have been killed in war?

 

Just how important is this debate?

[Weetie]

You're posing a straw man argument. Yes, it's true that a lot of suffering happens regardless of whether Jesus was real or not, but a lot suffering is directly related to the question. How many children would have been spared molestation or rape by pedophile priests if we could prove that Christianity is a fairy tale? How many gays would be spared rejection and shame? How many people on this website would have been spared the brutalizing experiences they endured in their fundy churches and families?

There are many kinds of suffering. Not all are caused by Christianity, but the ones that are could be eliminated if we could definitively prove Jesus was a mythical figure.

Good luck with that, though. There are plenty of people who deny the Holocaust, even though it happened in living memory and we still have concentration camp survivors among us today. People will believe whatever suits them, regardless of the evidence.

[Guest Valk0010]

I am not sure its important because there are many others ways to say christianity is bullshit then to say jesus never existed. There are better things to do definitely like you say then write reams on a subject where the evidence is so scant its hard to have anything definitive.

[Adam5]

I am not sure its important because there are many others ways to say christianity is bullshit then to say jesus never existed.

 

Agree! My thought exactly.

[FeelHappy]

I don't get the worry about if Jesus was historical or not, the real question is if he was really god incarnate and with this I can almost surely answer no.

[Adam5]

I don't get the worry about if Jesus was historical or not, the real question is if he was really god incarnate and with this I can almost surely answer no.

 

Nicely put.

 

The other key question is, IMO, is the Bible the word of God? With this we can definately answer no, I'm certain of this as I am of anything.

[qadeshet]

As ex Christians, it may not matter to us whether Jesus existed or not. But it certainly matters to a billion Christians out there. It's an enjoyable debate and I'm curious to see where it leads.

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

It seems that this debate is getting so heated in recent times, that perspective has been almost entirely lost!

 

If Jesus was an historical person, and you prove it, do you save a starving child in Sudan?

If Jesus was not an historical person, and you prove it, do you bring back a child's parents, who have been killed in war?

 

Just how important is this debate?

I think you're adding toxicity to it by asking such side questions, which are irrelevant to the question of "was there a historical Jesus?". Is there really a planet Uranus? Will its existence matter? Will it feed starving children in Sudan? Or bring back those who have fallen on the battlefield? I think that its wrong to kill discussion in this manner. All discussions when discussed, should be judged on their merits, and not their utility in a field other than its own.

 

Was there a historical Jesus? I highly doubt it. In fact, I really don't think he'd fit very well in the historical record, and his name even suggests he was just a legend.

 

IMO, we can feed the kids and Sudan and help prevent people's deaths, at the same time as question the existence of mythological creatures, both can happen simultaeneously wit 6 billion on this planet.

[Guest Valk0010]

It seems that this debate is getting so heated in recent times, that perspective has been almost entirely lost!

 

If Jesus was an historical person, and you prove it, do you save a starving child in Sudan?

If Jesus was not an historical person, and you prove it, do you bring back a child's parents, who have been killed in war?

 

Just how important is this debate?

I think you're adding toxicity to it by asking such side questions, which are irrelevant to the question of "was there a historical Jesus?". Is there really a planet Uranus? Will its existence matter? Will it feed starving children in Sudan? Or bring back those who have fallen on the battlefield? I think that its wrong to kill discussion in this manner. All discussions when discussed, should be judged on their merits, and not their utility in a field other than its own.

 

Was there a historical Jesus? I highly doubt it. In fact, I really don't think he'd fit very well in the historical record, and his name even suggests he was just a legend.

 

IMO, we can feed the kids and Sudan and help prevent people's deaths, at the same time as question the existence of mythological creatures, both can happen simultaeneously wit 6 billion on this planet.

I think he is saying we got better things to do then worry about something like this. But that is just my interpretation of what mick is saying.

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

Yeah, well some of us have the spare time to talk about. If we have better things to do, then why make a thread about it? Don't you have better things to do?

[Guest Valk0010]

Yeah, well some of us have the spare time to talk about. If we have better things to do, then why make a thread about it? Don't you have better things to do?

Well don't shoot me, for saying, that only could be what he is saying.

[micksherlock]

It seems that this debate is getting so heated in recent times, that perspective has been almost entirely lost!

 

If Jesus was an historical person, and you prove it, do you save a starving child in Sudan?

If Jesus was not an historical person, and you prove it, do you bring back a child's parents, who have been killed in war?

 

Just how important is this debate?

I think you're adding toxicity to it by asking such side questions, which are irrelevant to the question of "was there a historical Jesus?". Is there really a planet Uranus? Will its existence matter? Will it feed starving children in Sudan? Or bring back those who have fallen on the battlefield? I think that its wrong to kill discussion in this manner. All discussions when discussed, should be judged on their merits, and not their utility in a field other than its own.

 

Was there a historical Jesus? I highly doubt it. In fact, I really don't think he'd fit very well in the historical record, and his name even suggests he was just a legend.

 

IMO, we can feed the kids and Sudan and help prevent people's deaths, at the same time as question the existence of mythological creatures, both can happen simultaeneously wit 6 billion on this planet.

 

I see your point, however, as I spend alot of time (wasted, possibly) debating with apologists, who see it as one of the most important questions facing our species, I was just after a change of perspective. You raise some very good points though.

 

P.S Have you read my article on Isis the Virgin? I would love your insight.

[micksherlock]

It seems that this debate is getting so heated in recent times, that perspective has been almost entirely lost!

 

If Jesus was an historical person, and you prove it, do you save a starving child in Sudan?

If Jesus was not an historical person, and you prove it, do you bring back a child's parents, who have been killed in war?

 

Just how important is this debate?

I think you're adding toxicity to it by asking such side questions, which are irrelevant to the question of "was there a historical Jesus?". Is there really a planet Uranus? Will its existence matter? Will it feed starving children in Sudan? Or bring back those who have fallen on the battlefield? I think that its wrong to kill discussion in this manner. All discussions when discussed, should be judged on their merits, and not their utility in a field other than its own.

 

Was there a historical Jesus? I highly doubt it. In fact, I really don't think he'd fit very well in the historical record, and his name even suggests he was just a legend.

 

IMO, we can feed the kids and Sudan and help prevent people's deaths, at the same time as question the existence of mythological creatures, both can happen simultaeneously wit 6 billion on this planet.

I think he is saying we got better things to do then worry about something like this. But that is just my interpretation of what mick is saying.

 

You are correct. At the same time, I am making a bigger point. My point is somewhat abstract I admit, but, I see this debate and many of the manmade disasters of this world as being connected, and I see belief, or the unjustified beliefs and the complacency, action and manipulation afforded by those beliefs, as being partly if no wholly responsible. Perhaps I am just crazy!

[florduh]

It is crucial to fundamentalist Christians, for without an historical Jesus they have nothing. CINO liberals don't really care since they don't base their beliefs on an actual resurrection of a god-man, but rather take whatever feel-good woo they can from the Bible as well as other sources - it's symbolic or mythological to them, not accurate history.

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

Valk, I know where he's getting at. I just think that he and I have different ways of seeing things. I debate apologists just out of boredom from time to time, and mentally masturbate the "What if there was a...'s", but never anything with any degree of seriousness. You know I got no issues with you Valky

[Guest Valk0010]

Valk, I know where he's getting at. I just think that he and I have different ways of seeing things. I debate apologists just out of boredom from time to time, and mentally masturbate the "What if there was a...'s", but never anything with any degree of seriousness. You know I got no issues with you Valky

Yeah I know loverboy.

 

And I sort of fine myself between you too. Outside of brainwashing issues, anyone who would just spend a day reading about Christianity would find really good reasons to call it baloney. But at the same time, indepth study is nice because then you can surpise people in a bind.

[micksherlock]

Valk, I know where he's getting at. I just think that he and I have different ways of seeing things. I debate apologists just out of boredom from time to time, and mentally masturbate the "What if there was a...'s", but never anything with any degree of seriousness. You know I got no issues with you Valky

Yeah I know loverboy.

 

And I sort of fine myself between you too. Outside of brainwashing issues, anyone who would just spend a day reading about Christianity would find really good reasons to call it baloney. But at the same time, indepth study is nice because then you can surpise people in a bind.

 

"Know thine enemy." This may seem a little dramatic, afterall it is a maxim for war, but this is exactly what we are dealing with, a war. It may not be a physical one, but it is certainly a pschological one. If non-Christians lose this war and the missionaries spread it, as they plan and are compelled to do so, then freedom will be the casuality. Let history be your teacher, your guide, let history bring forth the herald of what may come if we let theists spread too far and too high. If you take a look at the Joshua Project and other missionary think-tanks, you will see that Christianity is on the rise, on a global scale. For now it sings its songs peacefully in churches, but let us be reminded of the words of the pseudonymous author of "Luke":

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. Luke 19:27

 

People, especially Christians may wish to say; "Oh, that is in the past, all that superstitious nonsense!" But what is it that seperates the brutality and credulity of that time to this? Belief, strong conviction, in the wise words of Will Durant: "Certainty is murderous" The only way to prevent a future Dark Age, beit in the form of Islam or Christianity, or whatever belief system, is to educate, inspire and enlighten humanity. In my humble opinion, which could be totally wrong, we are presently living in an "Idiocracy" where priests have been substituted for Celebrities, Popes for Politicians and Bishops for Corporations. The preacher is now the Advertisement, the Church, the TV and the laity, well they, or us, we are still who we have always been. The meek and gulible masses.

 

Well there is my rant for now.

[BMandeville]

To me, it hardly matters whether or not there was a man named Yeshua who died at the hands of the Romans around 30-40 CE; I suspect there's some truth to it, but really, what exactly does that prove? It doesn't prove Jesus' divinity, has little if anything to do with the all-important question of whether or not there's a god in the first place, and provides no authenticity to the more miraculous details of the story. I don't think the existence of this man has any real bearing on the metaphysical claims and myths that surround the figure.

 

 

I'm willing to speculate, though. If the writings of Josephus and Tacitus are to be used as credible sources (although in the case of Josephus, the mention of Jesus is likely a later amendment by a different author), then we can assume there was a man called Yeshua from Nazareth who was a sort of political dissident/rabble-rouser in the fight for freedom from Roman occupation in the province of Palestine, who was later executed by the Roman Empire. This makes perfect sense, because at that time Romans reserved crucifixion as a punishment for political prisoners only. They wouldn't have involved themselves with a religious quarrel among the clergy of a scrappy province. Since religion in general was so important during that time, and since the Jewish religion and accompanying prophecies were so vital to the identity of the populace, it's reasonable to again assume that Jesus employed appropriate religious rhetoric as well as references to Yahweh in order to both make his point and lend him a sense of credibility. Further evidence of this can be found in the Gospels themselves, in which Judas is referred to as "Iscariot," in Greek, literally, "of Sicarri," which was an extremist rebel faction known for assassinating mid-level Roman officials ("sicarri" means "dagger"). The fact that Jesus had such men in his company suggests that he might have been more concerned with nationalism rather than salvation, however, it's worth noting that Hebrew culture at the time didn't bother to distinguish between the two. If there was a historical Jesus, it's far more likely that the circumstances of his life and death were closer to these.

 

That's about as far as I'm willing to go. The rest of the story is mostly a bastardization of Egyptian, Abrahamic, Babylonian, and pseudo-pagan mythologies added after the First Jewish Revolt. Like I said, it really doesn't make much difference whether or not there was an actual Jesus; it really doesn't prove any of the things claimed by Christianity. Christians use the possibility of Jesus' existence as a substitute for proof of unrelated claims when they have no other recourse. One can't prove that a long-dead man is divine any more than we could find a reasonable way to confirm an actual resurrection, but it lends the story a grain of tantalizing truth to point to a few fleeting extra-Biblical mentions, even if they are of questionable credibility. The only people who find questions of Jesus' actual existence compelling or validating are people who already accept Christianity without question.

[AKR]

It seems that this debate is getting so heated in recent times, that perspective has been almost entirely lost!

 

If Jesus was an historical person, and you prove it, do you save a starving child in Sudan?

If Jesus was not an historical person, and you prove it, do you bring back a child's parents, who have been killed in war?

 

Just how important is this debate?

 

 

You could frame pretty much any debate that way. If it doesn't save starving children, then I guess we shoudln't discuss it.

[ShackledNoMore]

I think it's an interesting debate, but not an important one, except of course, to the fundigelicals.

 

I am pretty certain, for example, that Mohammed existed as a historical figure. I am undecided whether or not Jesus did. But Mohammed's existence no more makes islam the One True Faith or means that the Abrahamic god exists than the existence of Eddie Clontz (the Weekly World News editor) means that Bat Boy exists. The same is true for Jesus.

[Joshpantera]

I was swept into the debate following the first Zeitgeist movie. Prior to that I didn't know about the argument. I just assumed that Jesus was well documented and had never looked into Josephus or Tacitus for little scraps because I thought that there was a contemporary Jewish and Roman record of the whole ordeal. I hadn't the heard the objections so I didn't know that there was nothing even remotely close to that kind of contemporary source evidence. When I began to see that there was never any trial record, Jewish or Roman, or any contemporary source evidence of any type, and that the question rested on the validity of the Gospels and the TF in Josephus, I became increasing skeptical after that point and began to read.

 

I was familiar with Campbell's assertion that the historicity of myths is secondary to the message of the symbolism itself. He thought there was a real Jesus of Nazareth under it all, but pointed out how the history is irrelevant. Big kick in the nuts to fundamentalism, but for the average spiritual person outside of fundamentalism it almost seems like getting caught up in trying to prove historicity works against the grain, I'd think. The metaphorical use of the symbols (whether or not they're valid historically) doesn't take any type of a hit by concluding or allowing the possibility that Jesus of Nazareth was a mythological construct and an amalgamtion of many different personalities and myths rolled into one. So in my case I had no real bias against the question of historicity itself going into investigating the argument for Jesus mythicism.

 

Before long I was getting more involved in the case for mythicism. I was consulted to review the official "Mythicist Position" set out by DM Murdock in her book "Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection."

 

I gave my opinion and tried to be as helpful as possible. A youtube video was then produced to announce the MP:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKW9sbJ3v2w

[hereticzero]

I don't believe whether Jesus was a true historical figure makes any difference at all. What does make a difference is whether or not Christians can prove their claims of him being the son of god or The God™. The reference of the New Testament concerning Jesus is based upon Christian concepts of the Old Testament prophecies and how they believe these prophecies foretold the coming of Jesus. Or look at another way, did Frank live and how do we know Frank lived? Frank lived because there is physical evidence that Frank lived. Can we find proof that someone named Jesus lived? Some claim Jesus was a popular name back then. I don't believe it but others do. I have not found a reference to another Jesus beyond the texts used to comprise the New Testament and those 'gospels' not included in the New Testament. To me the reality of Jesus is as mythological as the myths of Moses or the talking snake. Did they exist? Only in the pages of religious writings which are a collection of mythology and historical events--in short they are historical fiction. Even if Jesus existed as a teacher who went against the religious status quo of his day and was executed for it, I could believe that much. But what I do not believe is an historical Jesus who was The God™ Christians claim him to be. That person just does not exist beyond the myths of religious belief. And the fact that someone long ago altered writings belonging to Josephus to include a mention of Jesus makes me disbelieve his existence completely.

[Joshpantera]

Just an FYI, here's a list of all the Jesus's mentioned in the writings of Josephus. But of course the reference to Jesus the Christ is a rank and known forgery:

"Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.?" By G.R.S. Mead

Here are the many Jesus's mentioned by Josephus throughout his works along with citations:

1. Jesus, son of Phabes – High priest. Ant 15.322

2. Jesus, son of Ananus – Common man prophesied destruction of the temple. War 6.300

3. Jesus, or Jason – High priest. Ant 12.239

4. Jesus, son of Sapphias – Governor of Tiberias. War 2.566, War 2.599; Life 1.066, Life 1.134

5. Jesus, brother of Onias – High priest. Ant 12.237, Ant 12.238, Ant 12.239

6. Jesus, son of Gamaliel – High priest. Ant 20.213, Ant 20.223

7. Jesus, no patronym – Eldest high priest after Ananus. War 4.238, War 4.316, War 4.325

8. Jesus, son of Damneus – High priest. Ant 20.203

9. Jesus, son of Gamala – High priest & Josephus’ friend. War 4.160; Life 1.193, Life 1.204

10. Jesus, [or Joshua] son of Nun – Successor to Moses. Ant 03.049, Ant 03.308; Ant 4.459

11. Jesus, son of Shapat – Principal head of a band of robbers controlling Tiberias, sallies against Vespasian's messenger Valerian. War 3.450

12. Jesus, son of Thebuthus – One of the priests, delivers to Titus precious things deposited in the temple. War 6.387

13. Jesus, son of Josadek – High priest. Ant 20.231, Ant 20.234

14. Jesus, no patronym – Galilean at head of a band of 600 followers, sent by Ananus & Jesus to depose Josephus. Life 1.200

15. Jesus, no patronym – Condemned to cross by Pilate. He was [the] Christ. Ant 18.063

16. Jesus, no patronym – Captain of those robbers who were in the confines of Ptolemais, allies with Josephus. Life 1.105

17. Jesus, brother of Jacob – Called the Christ. Ant 20.200

Ant.

03:049 (numerous) Jesus [Joshua] son of Nun.

11:298 Jesus, (son of Eliashib), brother of John – friend of governor Bagoses.

11:299 Jesus, [son of Eliashib] – slain by brother John, the High priest.

11:300 Jesus, [son of Eliashib]

11:301 Jesus, [son of Eliashib] – slain by brother John, the High priest.

12:237 Jesus, brother of Onias III – High priest.

12:238 Jesus, brother of Onias III – Deposed as High priest in favor of Onias = Menelaus

12:239 Jesus, younger brother of Onias = Menelaus – High priest.

12:239 Jesus, brother of Onias III – Renamed Jason. Revolts against Onias = Menelaus.

15:041 Jesus, (brother of Onias III)

15:322 Jesus, son of Phabes – High priest.

17:341 Jesus, the son of Sie – High priest.

18:063 Jesus, no patronym – Condemned to cross by Pilate. He was [the] Christ.

20:200 Jesus, brother of Jacob – Called the Christ.

20:203 Jesus, son of Damneus – High priest.

20:205 Jesus, [son of Damneus] – High priest.

20:213 Jesus, son of Gamaliel – High priest.

20.213 Jesus, son of Damneus – Deposed as High priest.

20:223 Jesus, son of Gamaliel – High priest.

20:234 Jesus, son of Josadek – High priest.

War

2:566 Jesus, son of Sapphias – Governor of Tiberias.

2:599 Jesus, son of Sapphias – Governor of Tiberias.

3:450 Jesus, son of Shapat – Principal head of a band of robbers controlling Tiberias.

3:452 Jesus, [son of Shapat]

3:457 Jesus, [son of Shapat] – Departs Tiberius to Taricheae

3:467 Jesus, [son of Shapat]

3:498 Jesus, [son of Shapat]

4:160 Jesus, son of Gamala – Best esteemed, with Ananus ben Ananus, of High priests.

4:238 Jesus, no patronym – Eldest high priest after Ananus.

4:270 Jesus, no patronym – [Eldest high priest after Ananus].

4:283 Jesus, no patronym – [Eldest high priest after Ananus].

4:316 Jesus, no patronym – [Eldest high priest after Ananus].

4:322 Jesus, no patronym – [Eldest high priest after Ananus].

4:325 Jesus, no patronym – [Eldest high priest after Ananus].

4:459 Jesus [Joshua] son of Nun.

6:114 Jesus, no patronym – High priest, deserts to Vespasian.

6:300 Jesus, son of Ananus – Common man prophesied destruction of the temple.

6:387 Jesus, son of Thebuthus – One of the priests, deserts to Titus.

Life

1:066 Jesus, son of Sapphias – Governor of Tiberias.

1:067 Jesus, son of Sapphias – [Governor of Tiberias.]

1:105 Jesus, no patronym – Captain of those robbers in the confines of Ptolemais.

1:108 Jesus, no patronym – [Captain of those robbers in the confines of Ptolemais.]

1:109 Jesus, no patronym – [Captain of those robbers in the confines of Ptolemais.]

1:110 Jesus, no patronym – [Captain of those robbers in the confines of Ptolemais.]

1:134 Jesus, son of Sapphias – Governor of Tiberias.

1:178 Jesus, no patronym – Brother of Justus of Tiberias.

1:186 Jesus, no patronym – Brother of Justus of Tiberias.

1:193 Jesus, son of Gamala – High priest & Josephus’ friend.

1:200 Jesus, no patronym – Galilean at head of a band of 600, sent to depose Josephus.

1:204 Jesus, son of Gamala – High priest & Josephus’ friend.

1:246 Jesus, no patronym – Owned a house big as a castle. Governor of Tiberias?

1:271 Jesus, no patronym – Governor of Tiberias.

1:278 Jesus, no patronym – [Governor of Tiberias.]

1:294 Jesus, no patronym – [Governor of Tiberias.]

1:295 Jesus, no patronym – [Governor of Tiberias.]

1:300 Jesus, no patronym – [Governor of Tiberias.]

1:301 Jesus, no patronym – [Governor of Tiberias.]

The Works of Josephus Whiston translation online

The Works of Josephus Whiston translation online

Josephus: The Complete Works Whiston translation online

The Works of Josephus in Greek

Flavius Josephus

 

And of course none of these do any good to try and fix the myth to one particular historical person because the Christ reference is just plain out the door. You can see how attractive it would have been for Eusebius (or whoever) to see the long lists of Jesus's in Josephus and figure that they ought to forge a Christ reference in there somewhere in the mix of Jesus's because it wasn't mentioned originally and forger thought that it ought to. And none of the early apologists ever quoted the TF until the time of Eusebius, when, magically it appeared into the historical and literary record seemingly out of nowhere.

[mwc]

The debate is all important. Any resolution is unimportant.

 

mwc

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

A historical existence of Jesus is about as important as a historical existence of Julius Caesar. It helps forge a consistent historical picture for those wanting to know the history of our world.